16 May 2013

Here's the media release put out by SDOHA - this Network is a member.May 14, 2013Health inequity grows as Senate report gathers dustWhile not a source of surprise, the Social Determinants of Health Alliance has expressed disappointment at there not being any mention in this year’s Federal Budget about the shame of increasing rates of health inequity in a country that prides itself on giving everyone a “fair go”.The Social Determinants of Health Alliance (SDOHA), representing more than 40 health, social service and public policy organisations, was launched in February, shortly before the Senate Community Affairs Committee published the findings of its Inquiry into Australia’s response to World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations on addressing health inequity.“It has now been 55 days since the committee tabled its report containing five clear recommendations on what should be done to address the unacceptable levels of health inequity in this country,” SDOHA spokesman Martin Laverty said.“The unanimous report of a committee with representation from across the political spectrum said the Government should start the social determinants ball rolling by adopting the WHO’s Closing the gap in a generation report and commit to addressing the social determinants of health in a manner that’s relevant to the Australian context.”The adoption of that report, considered by many to be the seminal document on health inequity, was one of the Alliance’s key priorities as outlined in its submission to the Senate Inquiry. It was also highlighted at the February gathering at which Social Inclusion Minister Mark Butler officially launched SDOHA.SDOHA spokesman Michael Moore said members of the Alliance understand there are serious fiscal constraints on the Commonwealth, as well as states and territories, in the current environment. One of the beauties of the social determinants of health agenda, though, is that it doesn’t necessitate much – if any – spending.“A great deal can be achieved without any line being added to the Federal Budget,” Mr Moore said. “The committee said governments should adopt practices that ensure consideration of the social determinants of health in policy development across all areas. That won’t add dollars to the Budget, but would change the way politicians and bureaucrats think about health and the ways in which any policy decision can affect people’s health – positively or negatively.”Professor Sharon Friel, a health equity professor at Australian National University and one of the lead advisors to the WHO’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, said September’s election mustn’t see the health equity agenda shelved.“With the Government having six months to respond to the Senate Inquiry’s report, it could sit on its hands and do nothing,” Professor Friel said. “We know Prime Minister Julia Gillard has a strong commitment to fairness and equity, though. We know Minister Mark Butler shares that commitment, and we’re confident that the Labor, Greens and Liberal senators who sat on the committee won’t want to see their thoughtful recommendations, which will support economic, social and health policy goals, gather dust on a shelf somewhere. Australians deserve better than to see politics and electioneering placed above their well-being.”

15 May 2013

While mining companies pull in billions of dollars in
profits, in some Tasmanian suburbs there are people who can’t even afford to
adequately heat their homes. And while the Federal Government spends billions
of dollars of public money on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to
be extracted and burned, in last night’s budget it indicated that it cannot
afford to increase Newstart payments for recipients who are living below the
poverty line. While the Government folded to the mining industry’s vehement
opposition to the proposed mining tax, it has now laid down significant cuts to
tertiary education. And while billions of dollars of fuel subsidies
remain in place, it cuts funding for renewable energy programs.

And where are we now – in the red? But does this really
matter? What matters more is the equity of it all.

Why is it that the Federal Government single-minded looks at
ways to cut back (on the things that really matter) without any real
consideration for how to draw in additional funds? This is particularly
striking, given that it’s staring them in the face – the mining industry. It is
utterly inequitable that the Federal Government does not require those who are
obscenely wealthy to share their loot and contribute to making a more equitable
society: a society in which everyone has the same opportunities to be healthy
and where the social conditions of our lives are conducive to good health – a
decent education, job, community, home and family life.

Waiting for the ‘rising tide that lifts all boats’ will see
us wait around forever. We
know for a fact that the neoliberal panacea of the ‘trickle down’ effect has
not stood up to examination. The Government must be courageous, and act on the
incoming side of the equation not just the outgoing – cuts to services and
programs.

Taxes
are good for all of us as a society. Individuals may oppose them but we must
look beyond the wishes of the wealthy few to what is good for the greater good,
and build a more decent compassionate society.

14 May 2013

After months of
deliberation and consultation with the Conference Scientific Committee, we have
arrived at a revised working definition for the 8th Global Conference on Health
Promotion in June 2013. Please see this link for the
revised definition.
In addition, a web-based consultation for two key outcomes of the
Conference - a “Health
in All Policies (HiAP) Framework for Country Action” and a Conference Statement - is
now being undertaken. The consultation will run from May 9-19, 2013.

The Framework will give countries concrete guidance on how to implement Health
in All Policies and the Statement will call for action on HiAP to achieve
improved health and equity.

The consultation is administered by WHO and the local organizer, Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health, Finland. The proposed drafts can be obtained through
this link.Interested parties
are invited to send their comments directly to 8gchp@who.int.

Is
the answer to the question why – why do we have such health inequity – that we just don’t care enough?

In a paper on addiction and social compassion, Gavin Mooney wrote the following:

“In
a caring society being poor is not good for health but it is not as bad as
being poor in an uncaring society.”

“In
an increasingly neoliberal world where individualism, small government and low
taxes are the order of the day, compassion can cease to be a public emotion.”

“We
live in a competitive society. Competition means that some win and others lose.
The question is what becomes of those who lose in the competition in school, on
the labour market, on the housing market etc? ....what is required is ‘long
term planning and resolute political and economic efforts to provide an
opportunity for as many people as possible to feel that they are valuable
members of society.”

“Public
compassion matters...We need to care not simply because people are poor in
income or have had their culture destroyed by colonisation, or are addicted to
gambling or drugs, or have fled from some vile regime, but simply because they
are badly off. The need is to embrace rather than push away ‘the other’...The
embrace must be for the sake of building a decent society, a caring
community....”

“In
considering the badly off, if we as a community are to assist them, we need to
listen to their voices, the voices of the poor, of addicts. Giving voice to the
voiceless is the way to achieve a better distribution of power, to support our
democractic institutions, to build social capital and to address not just
inequalities in health and income but those that exist at a more structural
level in our society. That is the road to a decent caring society.”

02 May 2013

Listening to
Peter Costello the other night – between bedtime stories, putting toys away and
whatever else needed doing – I couldn't help but feel that on an almost daily basis
– or at least as often as I get to read/hear some sort of news/media – there
seem to be more and more examples that illustrate: Australia – the uncaring society. How have we come
to a point where it is considered to be more important to accumulate wealth
than to educate our children and young people, and to provide people with
disabilities with a decent standard of living and access to the support
services they need? I find it highly concerning where the order of the day –
the need for budget surpluses, low taxes, the massive accumulation of wealth by
a very small proposition of individuals – is seen as being more important than issues
of social justice. We must do more to create a more caring compassionate society. Caring is good for health.

“I mean, here we are, Julia Gillard says
we've got a structural deficit which we now have, that we've come off record
terms of trade, which we now are, and so what's her response? New spending.
We're still going into new spending. We're going into the NDIS, we're going
into the Gonski spending. Wouldn't you sit back and say we've had five budget
deficits in a row, we're heading for another one, we shouldn't be introducing
new spending.

"Well, well I would start with the
Gonski funding for starters. So here we can't pay for our spending so what are
we going to do, we're going to go out and spend more on schools. So let's go to
the NDIS. We can't pay for our spending so we'll spend more on disability. We
can't pay for our spending to we'll pay for parental leave.

I'd only say this. I wouldn't be
introducing it (NDIS) in this form at this time. The budget's in deficit. To
fund it you'll have to borrow more money. Wouldn't you say, seeing as we're in
deep deficit, seeing as we can't afford to pay for all the spending we've
currently got on the books, why should we actually spend more? I'd actually be
looking at ways in fact to reduce the spending now, maybe to put it - put some
money aside in the future. I wouldn't be sitting down and saying we'll go into
a new spend which could be when it fully flowers something like $8 billion a
year.”

The Social Determinants of Health Advocacy Network held its inaugural conference in Hobart last November

Visit our website to view and download some of the presentations

Visit: http://sdohtasmania.org.au

.

What are the social determinants of health?

The word social relates to society and means people.

Determinants of health are - broadly speaking - the things that affect your health - either in a positive way (they protect our health and keep us healthy) or a negative way (they make us sick).

If we put these things together - the social determinants of health are things (systems, products, factors) created, shaped and controlled by people that affect our health.

These things include education, housing, employment, transport and so forth. These are created and shaped by people. And because if this it's possible to change them.

As an example, let's look at transport. We - the people - have created our transport systems. Not necessarily you or I personally but as a society we've done this. The problem is that there are many aspects of the system that are not great - many of our streets aren't cycle or pedestrian friendly, if you live in a rural area public transport options are limited, the number of cars on our roads isn't good for the environment and so forth. All of these things about the transport system can affect our health.

But the great thing is that, because we - the people - developed this system in the first place, we have the ability to change it - to make things better and to improve health as a result.

There are other determinants of health - such as our genes - that we can't change. So let's focus on the things we can do to improve health.

More formally, here's how the literature talks about the social determinants of health:

The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities - the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries.

Here's a good place to start your reading:

A great publication on the social determinants of health is The Solid Facts.

Vision of the Network

All Tasmanians have the opportunity to live a long, healthy life regardless of their income, education, employment, gender, sexuality, capabilities, cultural background, who they are or where they live.

Membership

Membership of the Network is open to all Tasmanians who share this vision.

Membership is free of charge. Membership means you become a subscriber to our enews and that you get the opportunity to work with others who are part of this Network to undertake advocacy action.

Membership to the Network can be obtained by providing a name, organisation (where there is one but individuals can join as individuals), address, telephone and email address to the Facilitator by email:

socialdeterminantsofhealthtas@gmail.com

The Network currently has more than 220 members across Tasmania (as well as some interstate) from a broad range of sectors.

“The Commission’s main finding is straightforward. The social conditions in which people are born, live, and work are the single most important determinant of good health or ill health, of a long and productive life, or a short and miserable one. ……..This ends the debate decisively. Health care is an important determinant of health. Lifestyles are important determinants of health. ….But, let me emphasize, it is factors in the social environment that determine access to health services and influence lifestyle choices in the first place”.

Dr Margaret Chan, Director General, World Health Organisation.

Tasmanian Action Sheets on the Social Determinants of Health

Visit the Tasmania Council of Social Service website to download 10 action sheets on the social determinants of health in Tasmania.